tv [untitled] March 20, 2013 8:30pm-9:00pm PDT
the formula retail legislation is analyzed and applied, some of which are legislative correction, but i think that some of which really need the attention of the way that the zoning administrator does... bear that in mind. >> thank you. >> the next speaker? >> madam president? commissioners, i'm thomas ren olds the president of the merchant's association. i am happy to tell you that things are good on fillmore and we have no empty storefronts we are one of the most desirable streets in the country, we are happy about that and it has had negative effects that mostly formula retail has helped to deter the larger chains from coming to fillmore street but there are unintended consequences since the law was written several years ago and one of them is the spin offs that are coming from the gap
and starbucks as they find ways around the literal reading or the application of the law and another is international stores, where the latest come to fillmore street to announce that it is coming to fillmore street has less than 11 in the u.s. and 202 worldwide. so those are larger policy issues that have led a lot of retailers and retailers to target fillmore street as a location that they have to locate before they get to eleven. and in the last two years, about 20 stores have opened on our street. none of them had more than 11 stores when they opened. almost all of them have more than 11 stores now. so, the result has been that our hardware store is now a french clothing store and the cleaners is now a chase bank and the thrift shop is now a part of the gap empire and i could go on and what has happened is that the fair
amount of disengenuous or we call it a gallery or pop up or we put it in some else's name and even the permits none of them have oska's name on it and it has turned the statute on its head and a lot of this is not in the statute. first it was told how many they had last halloween. and then it was how many they have as of the first permit. and then it was how many stores they have operating. but this language is not in the statute. you have the opportunity to look at what is really going on here. and combine the question of oska and the rebuilding of this store and we hope that you will do that. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, we will start with rebuttal, miss ota you have three minutes. >> i was appellant of alan tan and when i was there we had to do our own foundation and it
was the building and it was a total mess. he had the opportunity before (inaudible) moved in to rec identify the foundation and did not. secondly, with regard to the pop up store. i went down and interviewed the mer dhant chants and they all agreed that is closed at the end of february and at the put up a posting saying that a pop up store was never that was closed on january 1 and it was posted on february 28th, two months after the fact. they still occupy the building and still are in that. i think that they plan to turn it back into a oska men's store as soon as all of this blows over.
they can't take away the business that ye built up in the area, this is the kind of people that we are dealing with here and the chains are ready to swallow up our small merchants. >> i have a question. you stated that they had a chance to fix if it. >> they were there from 1980 to 2012. before they moved in there was a vacantcy, i knew what the condition was because we had to do the work on the foundation. i think that they saved the money and rushed in the tenant and hoped that they do not find out how bad it was. i was a tent ant from 1978 to 88. >> thank you. >> tan, you have three minutes.
>> i would like to add just to the point that she just made that when alan purchased, the building in 1986, it was owned by multiple parties. there are three are four parties that owned the building and everyone had to be in agreement. and secondly i think that prior to the 1989 earthquake there was not that much of a push, you know, on land lords to do any type of work. subsequent to after the 1989 earthquake there has been a lot more discussion about what can we do to make building safers and that kind of addresses why this was not taken care of when this space was vacant, 22 plus years ago, i don't know the exact, like the full details, but i do know that this was this building was owned by
four people and in 1989 people were thinking what else can we do about that? and another thing that i want to mention is that we actually made the request, when they were in discussion with the lease oska wanted to open a store sooner and wanted to take over the space as soon as the left and it was our request that we could postpone it six weeks to do the work and i have e-mails and whatnot going back and forth because we thought it was four weeks and we talked to the contractors and they said six weeks. so it was our request to do that. it was not oskas i think that if it was their choice they would have wanted to start a bit earlier. >> do you have anything? >> thank you. >> well, i have a question for you. >> so, the work was not a precondition of them signing the lease. >> no it is not. >> was it offered as an incentive? >> no. >> was if in the lease. >> the only thing in the lease
is that the landlord will take back possession of the building, the reason that it was all put together was because the money was paid to (inaudible) to vacate the space so that is why it was incorporated where all three parties needed to agree on everything, they agreed to leave, january 31st, and our request was we wanted landlord wanted to take position of the building. what it states in the lease is that the landlord will take position of the building from february first to march 15th and retain possession during that time frame to do any seismic or improvements i think what it says is capitol improvements which may include seismic up grades and then, therefore, on march 15th and there after, it was we would return the space to oska for them to do whatever work they needed to do for the build out. >> okay. >> well you have not hit that
date. >> yeah. >> that is part of your lease agreement. >> that you negotiated for jet mail leaving and oska moving in, and the landlord your family's management company to maintain possession, is there a consideration given by oska for purposes of these. >> no there isn't. >> absolutely not. and actually it clearly states that the landlord during that time frame whatever seismic or capitol improvements are done is paid for by the landlord and subsequent to that anything else is the building or the space is as you know, what is the word that was used i can't recall. but, essentially, yeah, it was, stipulate ed in the lease that we are going to be doing capitol improvements.
>> and i would appreciate commissioner fung pointing out the issue and the fact that the foundation work is only on part of the building dbi is going to be paying attention to that and the impact on the rest of the building. based on what you stated earlier, i was under the impression it was going to actually support the second floor. >> you know i could have alan actually come up and speak. i don't have a background. he does, he can speak towards exactly what they are doing. >> i mean earlier your comments and argument was to make sure that everyone felt safe. >> i think that anything other than and please mind i am not and i don't have engineering background, from my understanding with speaking with alan and the contractors that anything is better than a brick foundation, obviously the ideal situation is to do the foundation so it is connected in this case it is not feasible.
you kind of look's options that are available and the options are that we have a vacant space whoever is going to be in that space, idealy we want to do something. >> there are three other retail spaces that are occupied? >> is that the situation? >> that is correct. >> and a second floor of seven units. >> that is right. >> yeah. >> could i clarify was the jet nail lease up? >> no it was not up. >> they were incented to vacate early. >> they had the problems to pay the rent. their rent was below market. they actually came to us and jet mail contacted me in regards to negotiating i guess a termination of their lease and the oska had you know, and jet mail, i guess initially discussed and then jet mail contacted me and said that he would like to leave but he would leave if he was consider
some consideration by oska. basically buying his lease is what that was. so, it was jet mail that contacted me. >> so those negotiations were between jet mail and oska. >> correct. >> and i was contacted after when they had already agreed upon something. so i am not privvy to that information, but my understanding is that they discussed it first and then jet mail decided that they wanted to leave and contacted me and said here is the situation and i was hoping that you can work with us and i said okay, let's work on something just because we knew for the past year or so he has been having a hard time paying rent. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the department rebuttal? mr. sanchez? >> no. your time is up. >> just in regards. >> you are not having any additional time.
unless the president agrees to it. >> i am sorry. no. >> >> commissioners, the matter is submitted and the department has no rebuttal. >> i almost said it at the beginning of this, you know that the hearing on the use is really going to be that the may hearing. and i don't think that anybody disputes that some seismic effort is always helpful in a building especially in san francisco. there are technical questions that were raised and i hope that the building owner and permit holder is aware that they should consult with their structural engineer because when you make one part of the building stiffer it has a tendency to attract any seismic forces to that point and if you
are only doing it on a voluntary basis you are not upgrading the building very much and it cause more damage than if the entire building was left alone. there is no doubt that the brick foundation is not very helpful in our city. i would assume that the soil conditions there in the fillmore is quite different than in the marina and therefore a little bit more stable, but still that kind of foundation needs to be replaced and they should have a longer term program to upgrade the entire building. i have no idea what the building even looks like, but the soft story program really applies to the buildings that have a lot of glass and openings at the ground floor. it appears that the structure and the original wood structure of it is substantial and the upgrade of that is relatively easy. but that is all of a technical nature. the question is, is the nature
of this particular permit, and then, the nature of the appeal that is against this permit. i'm not prepared to accept an appeal on this scope as currently indicated for ada purposes and seismic and probably will hear the arguments that were made tonight on the may 15th date. >> i will concur with commissioner fung. >> i will entertain a motion, if anyone has one. >> i am going to move to up hold the permit as currently scoped for ada and seismic on the bases that it is code compliant. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to up hold this permit on the basis that it is code compliant.
on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5-0, this permit is upheld on that basis. >> okay. we will call item number 1 0, appeal number 1 3-013, peter linn verses the department of building inspection with planning department approval. subject property at 1325 portola drive protesting the issuance on january 30, 2013 to sofia new of a permit to alter a building, comply with violation of 201299633, revision to bpa no, 2006/09/06/0482 to document the accurate building height relationship between the proposed elevation of 1325 portola drive and the neighboring building to the
west. this is application, 2012/03/27/6917. and we will start with the appellant and you will have seven minutes. >> good evening, board members, i would like to thank you all for looking into this matter. we have been up here many times over the last few years. and on 1325 portola was first proposed and approved it was to be six inches taller than the neighborhood 1337, initially, 1337 was a bench mark used for the height shown. the original drawings showed the highest point the pique to be 6 inches tall and her this approved by the san francisco home owner's association and the building department. those original drawings were later proven to be of incorrect scale and in fact 1325 will be
a full six feet taller. to this day it has never been identified or located. after the building department approved the plans, the own, attempted to widen the home and build deeper into the lot and raise the roof and the height of the roof and widen the driveway and somehow actually granted a wider curb cut as well. some you you may remember these issues. you the board saw through all of this back then and brought her back into compliance, i would like to thank you for that. this project was allowed to be built as tall as proproesed and
it will be a negative impact on my home, i live behind and due east of 1325. and this home will effect my afternoon sun from the west, 1325 will be blocking a significant amount of sunlight and air flow any way, but this extra six feet in height further blocks the afternoon sun as well. if this project had been originally build as proposed this never would have been an issue, the owner has stated that this different in height is due to a change in grade of portola drive, it does rise in elevation but gradually, the rise from lot to lot is approximately 3 and a half feet. what they are going to do is have a 6 foot jump between one roof to the next. this arupt jump in height appears out of character for our area. all of the neighborhood homes do have an increase in height as they proceed up the drive
however this increase in height is gradual and actually flows well with the grade of the street. 1325, will have a abrupt jump conflicting with the look of the neighborhood. this area in question of 1325, as even yet to be built. it currently exists only on paper, this will be an attic area. less than 5 feet tall, inside when finished. the change on proposing will in no way effect the residents living there the attic area could never be considered living space, it would merely be a shorter attic, what i am asking for is a compromise to have this finished roof line be built at a lower height. this could be a far less steep pitch or a flat sloped roof, i was been in touch with the board chair and they will open to look laog at proposals and the original proposals were fine with everyone in the neighborhood however those drawings were misleading,
unfortunately what isleing built is different than what was originally depicted. there has never been a physical marker on site showing the finished height of this home. we don't know where it ends. and all that they have is bench mark for the house next door. as i stated before, we have dealt with this very same problem concerning this project many times. you the board of appeals are a great help in the past in keeping in project on the right path and i would greatly appreciate the board's help again. and i am in no way suggesting that this home be greatly altered or anything of that nature. i am asking that be built more in line of what was originally proposed. at this point, i would like to show, this is the copy of the original drawings. and i am not sure where they
are establishing their elevations from this is going to be too small to see, it shows 1337 next door, 134.5 feet. and then we have 1325 portola at 135 feet and it is clear enough that this thing will not bring in that tight. but, it was very clear on the original drawings. and what they are now proposing is a height of or well, upon me calling the building commission, they resubmitted their plans and showing it now to be 6 feet taller. i know that the builders are here saying that this has been a financial burden with all of these delays. i just like to say beforehand, all of these delays were due to
circomventing the system. they are all self-inflicted problems. i don't want you to be fooled into believing this was a mistake. i think that this was done on purpose. this was drawn up by a licensed architect. and it is has just been one mistake in their favor after another. and really the way that this has been going on, they are really making a mockery of the whole system for the building system and this board and attempting to any way. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. linn, in your brief you discussed that you disagreed with the representation of the permit holder on what is north? >> that is correct. >> it was not the permit holder, it was the, you are the board of appeals. >> it was us?
>> no it was not you, it was the planning commission. thank you for pointing that out. this house is west of my house and somewhere on the planning commission said that it was north. and i spent the whole time in front of the planning commission and i have the photographs for you and i can show them to you, showing a view from my house and this is the house, 1325 in the foreground and the pacific ocean in the background, which is west. >> so then you are off. >> i am in number 20 on sanlorenzo. >> we can see it from the side. >> i am behind it. >> okay. >> thank you, we will hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, president
hwang and commissioners. representative for the permit holder and the respondent. this is in response to the appellant's concern regarding obstruction of sunlight or air flow, the appellant like he mentioned is located behind the project. and so, the appellant's property is actually much higher than the grade of the property project. so, i don't think that the sunlight or air flow would be any more significantly impacted. in response to the appellant's concerns regarding the height of the building in comparison to the neighboring building as you mentioned runs up a hill each building rises accordingly. and i think that also mentioned at the discretionary review hearing about the planning commission, the planning commission architect actually stated that it was not six feet of an increase that it was more
like 3 feet. but again, i don't... i am not an architect, but at the discretionary review he did mention that it was not actually that steep of a jump from house to house. the appellant requested that the project plans be modified to a shorter roof. but the plans of the building feature the losses and the asthetic of the neighborhood with the pitched roof with clay tiles it will appear higher than a low roof or a flat roof or a low sloped roof contrary to the statement that a shorter roof will fall in line with the original drawings, i think that the design of the roof or the modification of the design of the roof would actually impact the neighborhood negatively. the design has personal and particular specifications that would change it significantly, it is over all appearance as well as general upkeep. it provides more structure
stability as well as excellent drainage. while the low sloped roof requires more maintenance more prone to moisture damage. in taking dao consideration the basic structure and characteristics of the building in comparison of the roof flat or low sloped roof, the characteristic of a modern home which is contrary to the design of the home currently. the design of the project has been discussed at great lengths over several years, probably over eight years now. to take into account suggestions and recommendations of the neighborhood and also in accordance with the saint francis wood neighborhood design guidelines. the project architect worked with the architect of the home association and concessions have already been made to the original drawings and have also been presented before the board. i think that the home as built or as designed, rather, will
have unique features that will contribute to the visual attraction of the home and the street and the neighborhood. per the discretionary review hearing of the planning commission on january tenth, all attending board members and president ruled in favor of the project without changes or altering made to the plan. some even commenting and agreeing that every project would be given attention to detail. >> given the concerns of the appellant the project plans have nonetheless been designed in accordance with the building code and all requirements have been met. i don't feel that any circumstances warrant any revisions of the design of the home or roof. i also have a picture that i
wanted to show of the property, which is here. and mr. linn's home is here and as you can see the neighborhood. >> could you point that out again. >> this is property. the subject property. and right on the (inaudible) way which is actually, this is if you are driving up portola drive this is the property and this is the neighboring home. so the appellant's home is right here. if you notice all of the other houses actually have you know, high pitched roofs just as the neighbor does, his roof is very high pitch. and so i mean, there is no houses that have plat roofs but one which is extremely modern and so it would be a completely different roof to the project house that has been designed to feature certain characteristics that would be consistent with the neighborhood as well as the home. so as you can also see this
picture was taken prior to the home being built. and there are extremely high trees, that are on the property before they were cut down and the land was excavated. and i don't see our home being any more different from the trees blocking any sort of sunlight or air flow as you can see. they are pretty high. and almost in line. i could not get a front view. as you can see, i am sorry, the trees are extremely high. thank you. >> thanks. >> miss new? the drawing that mr.